Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.

Who is Better for Litigation? BSF or CSM

Boies Schiller
42
61%
Cravath
26
38%
It's a wash
1
1%
 
Total votes: 69

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:09 pm

vamedic03 wrote:(2) As to "substantive responsibility", I have yet to see anyone actually identify such an example. If you're doing major litigation at either Cravath or Boies, an associate (especially junior or midlevel) shouldn't expect any stand-up experience. Associates at both firms will be doing some degree of document production

The people at Cravath will tell you this is clearly an advantage for them. The rotational system means that there's no "senior associate" that a partner has worked with repeatedly before and can just grab for the more substantive portions of a case; he gets a new set of associates rotated in and has to staff out the work to them. The whole idea is that associates have to learn the more substantive points of a particular subset of lit (or corp, as the case may be) in a shorter time frame and the system does that by making the partners give them more important work.

Dunno if it really works out in real life, but that's how my screening interviewer described it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:(2) As to "substantive responsibility", I have yet to see anyone actually identify such an example. If you're doing major litigation at either Cravath or Boies, an associate (especially junior or midlevel) shouldn't expect any stand-up experience. Associates at both firms will be doing some degree of document production

The people at Cravath will tell you this is clearly an advantage for them. The rotational system means that there's no "senior associate" that a partner has worked with repeatedly before and can just grab for the more substantive portions of a case; he gets a new set of associates rotated in and has to staff out the work to them. The whole idea is that associates have to learn the more substantive points of a particular subset of lit (or corp, as the case may be) in a shorter time frame and the system does that by making the partners give them more important work.

Dunno if it really works out in real life, but that's how my screening interviewer described it.


You should put that disclaimer at the top of your paragraph.

TheFriendlyBarber
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:13 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby TheFriendlyBarber » Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:57 pm

Renzo wrote:Boise Schiller isn't a firm. It's David Boise and a bunch of people who work for him.


This

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:21 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:(2) As to "substantive responsibility", I have yet to see anyone actually identify such an example. If you're doing major litigation at either Cravath or Boies, an associate (especially junior or midlevel) shouldn't expect any stand-up experience. Associates at both firms will be doing some degree of document production

The people at Cravath will tell you this is clearly an advantage for them. The rotational system means that there's no "senior associate" that a partner has worked with repeatedly before and can just grab for the more substantive portions of a case; he gets a new set of associates rotated in and has to staff out the work to them. The whole idea is that associates have to learn the more substantive points of a particular subset of lit (or corp, as the case may be) in a shorter time frame and the system does that by making the partners give them more important work.

Dunno if it really works out in real life, but that's how my screening interviewer described it.


You should put that disclaimer at the top of your paragraph.
Did you miss the part where I said "The people at Cravath will tell you . . ." ?

TheFriendlyBarber
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:13 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby TheFriendlyBarber » Mon Aug 29, 2011 8:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:(2) As to "substantive responsibility", I have yet to see anyone actually identify such an example. If you're doing major litigation at either Cravath or Boies, an associate (especially junior or midlevel) shouldn't expect any stand-up experience. Associates at both firms will be doing some degree of document production

The people at Cravath will tell you this is clearly an advantage for them. The rotational system means that there's no "senior associate" that a partner has worked with repeatedly before and can just grab for the more substantive portions of a case; he gets a new set of associates rotated in and has to staff out the work to them. The whole idea is that associates have to learn the more substantive points of a particular subset of lit (or corp, as the case may be) in a shorter time frame and the system does that by making the partners give them more important work.

Dunno if it really works out in real life, but that's how my screening interviewer described it.


You should put that disclaimer at the top of your paragraph.
Did you miss the part where I said "The people at Cravath will tell you . . ." ?


Yes, she did.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:(2)
The people at Cravath will tell you this is clearly an advantage for them. The rotational system means that there's no "senior associate" that a partner has worked with repeatedly before and can just grab for the more substantive portions of a case; he gets a new set of associates rotated in and has to staff out the work to them. The whole idea is that associates have to learn the more substantive points of a particular subset of lit (or corp, as the case may be) in a shorter time frame and the system does that by making the partners give them more important work.

Dunno if it really works out in real life, but that's how my screening interviewer described it.


You should put that disclaimer at the top of your paragraph.
Did you miss the part where I said "The people at Cravath will tell you . . ." ?


Yes, she did.


:-)

imchuckbass58
Posts: 1245
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby imchuckbass58 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hmm. According to DB, he only generates 15% of the business...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Highlights

15% is a ton, especially considering it's probably the most high-profile 15%. Having said that, this is probably a non-issue unless we think Boies is going to retire in the next five years or so, since that's about the length of time any of us are likely to still be working in a place like BSF.


Yeah, 15% is a massive portion. I don't think there's another major firm where one partner has 15% of the business (save maybe Weil/Harvey Miller).

Also, Boies doesn't seem like the type of person to retire. I think the bigger concern is his health, considering he's 70.

terribleperson
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:28 pm

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby terribleperson » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:28 pm

imchuckbass58 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hmm. According to DB, he only generates 15% of the business...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Highlights

15% is a ton, especially considering it's probably the most high-profile 15%. Having said that, this is probably a non-issue unless we think Boies is going to retire in the next five years or so, since that's about the length of time any of us are likely to still be working in a place like BSF.


Yeah, 15% is a massive portion. I don't think there's another major firm where one partner has 15% of the business (save maybe Weil/Harvey Miller).

Also, Boies doesn't seem like the type of person to retire. I think the bigger concern is his health, considering he's 70.


I open this thread once a day, just so I can reread "he only generates 15%" and chuckle.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:43 pm

terribleperson wrote:
imchuckbass58 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hmm. According to DB, he only generates 15% of the business...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Highlights

15% is a ton, especially considering it's probably the most high-profile 15%. Having said that, this is probably a non-issue unless we think Boies is going to retire in the next five years or so, since that's about the length of time any of us are likely to still be working in a place like BSF.


Yeah, 15% is a massive portion. I don't think there's another major firm where one partner has 15% of the business (save maybe Weil/Harvey Miller).

Also, Boies doesn't seem like the type of person to retire. I think the bigger concern is his health, considering he's 70.


I open this thread once a day, just so I can reread "he only generates 15%" and chuckle.


Cheap laughs. Most firms would be more than happy to have 85% of Boies Schiller's business.

Edit: too tired for math.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273477
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Boies, Schiller & Flexner v. Cravath

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:14 pm

I have the feeling Morgan Chu and Irell might be approaching that number??




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.